When a patient has a BRCA2 mutation, clinicians on the panel view it as such a dominant predictive biomarker that they would prioritize a PARP inhibitor-based triplet regimen. This single genetic finding often outweighs other clinical factors or even the potential addition of docetaxel in treatment decisions.
Related Insights
The negative ANSA-RAD trial, when contrasted with the positive STAMPEDE trial, demonstrates that patient selection is paramount in adjuvant therapy. The difference in outcomes was driven by risk definition, not the drug. This reinforces that "negative" trials are clinically vital for defining which patient populations do not benefit, preventing widespread overtreatment.
The investigator-led PLUTO trial found docetaxel chemotherapy provided a better overall survival benefit than lutetium in first-line mCRPC. This result directly confronts the common clinical bias against chemotherapy ("chemophobia"), proving that older treatments can still outperform newer targeted agents and should not be prematurely abandoned.
Lutetium faces criticism for its fixed 6-cycle regimen, which may be suboptimal as the PSMA target diminishes with ADT. However, this critique is rarely applied to other drugs like PARP inhibitors, which are given until progression. This highlights a double standard and the tension between using a fixed regimen for regulatory approval versus finding the optimal dose in practice.
The rapid advancement of ARPIs wasn't just a scientific breakthrough. It was a rare convergence of FDA interest in new endpoints, a deeper biological understanding of castration resistance, and intense industry and academic collaboration that created a uniquely fertile ground for innovation.
Experts believe molecular tests like Decipher and PTEN status are superior to simply counting bone lesions for guiding treatment. While not yet standard practice for all decisions, this represents a significant shift towards using underlying tumor biology to determine therapy, like adding docetaxel.
The FDA is predicted to approve new PARP inhibitors from trials like AMPLITUDE only for BRCA-mutated patients, restricting use to where data is strongest. This contrasts with the EMA's potential for broader approvals or denials. This highlights the diverging regulatory philosophies that create different drug access landscapes in the US and Europe.
In the AMPLITUDE trial, only 16% of high-risk metastatic prostate cancer patients received docetaxel, despite it being allowed and indicated by disease characteristics. This suggests a real-world "chemophobia" or physician bias towards newer targeted therapies, even within a clinical trial setting.
The panel suggests AKT inhibitor trials in prostate cancer have been disappointing due to suboptimal biomarker selection (e.g., PTEN IHC). A similar drug in breast cancer showed significant survival benefit when using a more precise NGS-based strategy, indicating a potential path forward if the right patient population is identified genetically.
Three 2025 trials (AMPLITUDE, PSMA-addition, CAPItello) introduced personalized therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. However, significant benefits were confined to narrow subgroups, like BRCA-mutated patients. This suggests future success depends on even more stringent patient selection, not broader application of targeted agents.
The IMbark trial demonstrated that an ARPI (enzalutamide), either alone or with ADT, outperformed ADT monotherapy in high-risk patients. This pivotal finding raises the question of whether giving ADT alone in any setting, such as with radiation for localized disease, is now an outdated and inferior approach.